redevelopment, the reuse, and the conversion of treasure island for development. concurrent with the base closure the city and county entered into a co-op agreement with the navy for services including operation of maintenance and utilities, police and fire, grounds and street maintenance, property management, and care take services. then tida entered into master leases with the navy to sublease properties and buildings for commercial use, maritime use and special event use, specifically those are the master leases before you today, the southern waterfront master lease, the childcare development center, events venue, land and structures, and maritime leases. tida, in turn, subleases these properties and -- to generate revenue to offset costs associated with the property management and municipal service obligations of the co-op

agreement including leases for housing, commercial, and special event. some subleases are for public service and do not generate income like to our nonprofits, little league, boys and girls club, were to open spaces. housing and commercial leases generate millions of dollars each year for tida's operations to pay for the day-to-day spending. both the co-op agreement and master lease expire annually and indeed they have been before you for 15 years. but as the supervisor avalos and supervisor kim said last week during the committee meeting, there is a request for tida to present on the most recent media account of the navy remediation. so for that today, we have amy brownwell from the san francisco department of public health who will speak to the regulatory process associated with remediation, and then bob burns, who is tida independent expert

on radiology with over 15 years of experience. >> may i ask a question to director sykes. >> president chiu: supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: before we move on to the radiological issues which there are a lot of questions concerning i wanted to put to rest some of the issues around the cooperative agreement. so some of the concerns that have come up -- now that tida's no longer a legally separate entity, i think there are some questions that have come up around some of the aging infrastructure. and i was hoping that maybe you could touch a little bit about what the discussions are currently today around the aging infrastructure, what discussions are headed towards in terms of who may be able to invest and fund for some of this work to ensure we aren't having electrical outages and some of the aging we're seeing in the wastewater treatment. if you can address some of those concerns and move on to the

radiological issue. >> it is true that the infrastructure is old and that it continues to be repaired, and we've had some recent outages. but i must say the puc has been very responsive in their attention to not only getting the repair done, but proactively inspecting all components of the infrastructure so as to prevent repairs in the future. the infrastructure is part -- will be part of discussions in the future, and puc -- i need to turn to the puc family who is here today, and also to michael time-off, who will present -- who could present to you those issues that are part of the greater development plan. >> good afternoon, president chiu, members of the board, michael carlan, deputy general manager for san francisco public utilities commission.

we currently work with tida operating the utilities on the island. it's something that we have done for numerous years. as the director has stated, we do proactively look at trying to maintain the utilities out there, but as time progresses, we see that there needs to be an investment made in some of the infrastructure on treasure island to keep it going in the future. and that's something that we're in discussions with tida at this point in time. i'm not here to discuss great details of all what that might be, but part of what you need to do today is actually continue the cooperative agreement so we can continue operating the utilities in the manner we have in the past for residents out in treasure island. we can come back and discuss with you, in detail, sort of what the infrastructure needs might be out there. in the interim period between the period of time when the city accepts perhaps treasure island and when the developer actually starts replacing all the infrastructure on the island. i'll be glad to answer any questions. >> supervisor kim: i just want to say i'm hoping we can get an

update at budget committee in the following months on ongoing negotiations both with the navy and our developer, seeing if we can share some of the cost repairing this infrastructure because we all depend on it, his whether it's the residents, the coast gard, or a future developer. i think this is something that is a shared issue to all of us and i'm hoping that we'll all pitch in to figure out a way to strengthen some of that infrastructure in place today. i wanted to point out in we do need to terminate the cooperative agreement we can do that with 30 days notice to the navy. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> supervisor kim: thank you. >> thank you very much, president chiu. >> president chiu: supervisor avalos. >> supervisor avalos: just to be clear on questions about liability, we have infrastructure that is not in the best shape on treasure

island, and we need to make significant investments in order to keep that infrastructure most of all utilities, working and functional. and what do we expect that's going to cost in the next few years? and who's going to be responsible for covering those costs? >> that's a very good question. >> supervisor avalos: general fund, versus puc, enterprise. >> so it's a very good question. i'm going to try and give a simple short answer. but it deserves a lot of attention. we've kind of identified that in the next year, and next two years, that there's an investment need of about $5 million a year that needs to be made in the infrastructure on treasure island. and i'm talking about the four utilities that we actually operate. we operate the water, sewer, electric, and gas systems on treasure island. those are capital improvements. right now, we collect money to cover operation and maintenance

costs but we're not collecting any moneys to cover capital cost. tida -- or treasure island is still a federal facility. those people who live on treasure island are city residents, but the actual utilities still belong to the navy. so liability and such, this is where the caretaker agreement comes in. some of it is the navy, some of it gets passed onto tida. in the future in the city were to accept the utilities in the state they're in now, it could be that you would have to make overriding considerations of accepting sup standard utilities and how do we invest in those, whether it's the puc or the city's general fund and that's the question we haven't answered yet. >> supervisor avalos: so we could very well have a significant impact to the general fund, and if not, how -- what constraints are there for the puc to be able to take over such utilities, and have the

financial wherewithal to do that? >> right. that's one of the issues that we need to discuss, especially on the water and sewer side because we're constrained by -- unless the city actually owns the utilities about capital fund on the utilities because of state law. we can't have our ratepayers subsidizing other ratepayers thp they're not puc ratepayers. >> supervisor avalos: so that's still being worked out. >> that's correct. to supervisor kim's questions there are two federal ent itself, department of labor job center and coast guard and they're starting to engage on some of these discussions about how they will get utility services in the future which may affect o how we discuss capital needs with them 16r789s. >> supervisor avalos: how do you see the city, and tida and developer come into -- is that

when the agreement comes before us? is that some other time? that is something that would be important for us to know hopefully today. i don't think my vote is contingent on knowing that information but i think it's important for us to have some sense of a timeline moving forward. >> i think i'll leave that to the development team, when the development agreement comes to you but we're engaged in those discussions and we're willing and able to kind of stay engaged and get those resolved. the development agreement at least. >> president chiu: supervisor campos. >> supervisor campos: i want to thank staff for the presentation and supervisor kim and her staff for their work on this issue. i have a basic question. and i understand that the items before us are more narrow in tems of what's being asked of us but one overarching concern that i maj -- that i know is in everyone's mind is the issue of safety, the safety of the residents, the safety of any

worker who's going to be doing work. so i'm wondering if someone can speak to that. i see this letter from the california department of public health, that talks about how the preliminary results from their analysis indicate that the radiation i guess is within allowable limits. so i'm wondering if you can speak to what that means exactly. preliminary results, by definition, imply that the results are not final. and what is allowable and what does that mean in terms of the day-to-day health of the residents of the island. thank you. >> good afternoon, president, board members, michael timeoff with the treasure island development authority, project director. i did want to respond to the last question. so as mr. carlan pointed out, tida and puc are engaged in

conversations as to the scope and cost associated with the utility repairs in the interim period between today and the development. and we anticipate bringing forward funding solutions and an operating agreement at the same time as we bring back amendments that we have been working on, on the edcmoa, which is the transfer agreement between tida and the navy to confer the property and we anticipate doing that in the next couple of months. to supervisor campos' question we have a full presentation on the radiological issues so i'd like to turn it back over to amy brownel to address those. >> president chiu, supervisors, my name is amy brownel an environmental engineer with san francisco department of public health. i have 19 years of reviewing

navy cleanup. as you're aware the navy has been conducting and is operating the facilities at the -- they're in charge of the facilities at treasure island, and they've been conducting cleanup at treasure island since the mid-1990's under protocols established by the comprehensive response compensation and reliability act. the oversight agency for this work monitoring what the navy is doing is the california department of toxic substances control. and with respect to radiological protection, the california department of public health oversees that aspect. there are two other regulatory agencies also involved in overseeing all the navy's work and they oversee various aspects of the cleanup. those are the regional water quality control board and the united states environmental protection agency. these agencies review the navy's work plans prior to them conducting the work. they review all the data after the work is done, and verify

that it is correct. and they verify that air monitoring and fences and controls are in place when the work is being done. in addition, they also conduct independent scans, which our radiological expert will speak to you about in just a moment. for the past 10 years, amack, environmental and infrastructure has provided independent oversight and review of this navy's cleanup program on behalf of tida. they also have a consultant who works with them, ngts, and they provide independent review and analysis of the navy's radiological cleanup activities for tida. mr. bob burns is here. he's the chief executive officer of ngts and a certified health fizz sift and he has over 20 years of experience in radiological assessment and will give you a preparation on the rairadiological issues at trease

island. >> good afternoon. i know you've all been provided a briefing packet, i believe earlier today. there's a lot of information there, and you may not have had ample time to digest it all at this point. so we have just a few brief slides summarizing the high points of that presentation. i was going to go over those with you today. as you know, radiological characterization and cleanup operation -- i'm sorry. if we could bring up the powerpoint please. >> president chiu: it's on. >> great. radiological characterization and cleanup activities have been going on at treasure island for roughly six years now. to date, areas of known radiological contamination --

there's only three areas identified with no radiological contamination. we have a map here. i'm not sure... >> excuse me, could you speak directly into the microphone. >> i'm sorry. okay. if we could switch to the overhead, i'm told. there we go. the three areas with known contamination to date are site 12, the building 233 site, which i can't see because i just changed glasses, building 233 site, and then the site 31, which is in this area here. and that's the extent of known areas of known radiological contamination today at treasure island. it's important to recognize there's extensive oversight by all the navy's cleanup

activities there. and through all its oversight activity they have not identified any human health concerns or human health issues at treasure island. likewise, they have consultants to tida based on our independent evaluations and reviews of the documentation, and the investigations performed out there, we have never seen anything that would question or contradict cdph's conclusions. right back to the powerpoint, the second slide. i'm reminded just today we were provided a letter by cdph, summarizing some of their more recent investigations and i believe you all have been provided a copy of that.

as you all know, the navy recently released what it turned as supplemental technical memorandum which is an addendum to the 2006 historical assessment of impacted and non-impacted areas on treasure island. and this supplemental memorandum they identified some - some -- identified some newly identified impacted areas that had not been identified in the previous hra. but in digesting that information it's important to recognize that the radiologically impacted does not mean there is contamination present. so to understand... going back

to the letter we received in cdph today we wanted to make it clear that the quote, a direct quote, no health and safety concerns were identified in our surveys in or around the five locations at treasure island. and i'll administer on those additional locations in a moment. going back to the impact versus non-impacted i think that's been a source of a lot of confusion. i wanted to start, the definition of a non-impacted area, which is simply an area where there is no reasonable possibility of residual contamination. so for a non-impacted area we set a very high bar for being able to -- once an area is deemed non-impacted you're done. you don't do additional investigations, no surveys, no nothing. in general some sites you don't necessarily identify non-impacted areas. often your non-impacted areas are off site used for so-called reference areas for background. what then is an impacted area.

an impacted area is an area that you cannot call non-impacted. those areas are impacted by default. impacted does not mean contamination is present. it means the additional scoping surveys are warranted. so some of these additional impacted areas identified in this latest tech memo, if we go back to the overhead, there's usf pandemonium site one, used by the navy for radiological training exercises and decontamination. wastewater treatment area, building 3, also building 342. too small for me to see. in response to the tech memo

coming out, the cdph has gone out and performed some investigations in the vicinity around site 31, around the boys and girls club area, childcare center, community housing partners facilities. they took both direct measurements and what are known as white surveys where you're looking for removable contamination. that's the subject of those surveys documented in the letter we received today. in addition to those, there are additional investigations that are going to be performed with cdph at the request of tida and using prioritization requested by tida, specifically the sites identified above, papped moneyium site one, wastewater treatment plant area where there's public utilities workers, and also building three and building 342. it's my view there's little likelihood of finding anything of public health concern in

these additional areas. >> president chiu: supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you, mr. burns. thank you for the memo that was brought before us. in the memo you said that you were confident in the data that cdph has provided and measures that they take to assess human health risk and due diligence on the oversight of the radiological program. could you explain why you feel confident in the processes and the measures that cdph takes and go into a little more detail about what they do. you mentioned surface wipes. to a layperson that doesn't sound very scientific and is not very reassuring. maybe you could talk more about that. >> i would say just looking at everything cdph has done today i think their reactions or responses have been timely and appropriate under the circumstances because you have an ongoing cleanup action as you know, but you also have residents and workers in close

proximity. so they've been very proactive and diligent in the actions they've taken, which included so-called direct surveys, where you're making direct measurements of exposure rates in these residential areas, also you mentioned the white surveys. when you talk about surface contamination you can take a detector and take a measurement on the surface and say there's a certain activity level there. in addition you want to know if they're removal activity because that could present a greater hazard to individuals and would also be indicative, if present, would be indicative of activity that would have been say wind blown or something of that nature. so if it's removal, it's readily dispersible, and it's something that requires a greater degree of care, and also means it's easier to clean up if there. white surveys are another type of assessment that cdph has performed. >> supervisor kim: could you talk about what surface wipes

is. are you talking about the ground, the soil? >> no. they're looking, as i understand, i think as windows, window sills, things of that nature, you know, just -- cdph would have to provide more detail but, again, what they're screening for, what they're looking at is was there any wind dispersal or anything of that nature. >> supervisor kim: i'm sure you understand the concerns that our residents have. >> crm. >> supervisor kim: particularly the cield care center and boys and girls club because that was listed by the navy as a potential site. you've made it clear just because it's radiologically impacted doesn't mean there's actual contamination present but it also does not mean there isn't contamination present. >> that is correct. >> supervisor kim: so the early assessments of cdph that these sites are safe for use by our children and families, i hope you can go into more detail as to why that is the case. i personally have concerns. i understand why our residents have concerns given that this is

what we're presenting to them. so kind of speak to that. >> okay. again, i can't go -- i can't speak on behalf of cdph, i can't go into great detail about their measurements, other than my outside review, i guess, or just looking at the work that they've done, like i said, everything -- i don't see anything that -- they did everything -- i would do, whatever that's worth. like i said, their measures were timely and appropriate, and they're going to continue to perform investigations in these newly identified areas. and the residents will be informed of that information as soon as it's available. like i said we got the letter from cdph today, which i... >> supervisor kim: i do want to give my colleagues an opportunity to ask questions because there are some. in your work experience, have you ever had suffers wipes collected, that have shown that the sites are safe, but then after further investigation,

that you found that there was contamination on site that was hazardous to the health of workers and residents? >> okay. well, let's ask the resident question first. i've never been involved with a cleanup project where we've had material get off site, where it was any sort of -- of any concern to residents or were identified contamination off site. you have to recognize the difference between measurements and assessment you're making within the work sites which are geared toward the cleanup actions versus the types of measurement that cdph is doing which are geared toward assessing public health. so i mean can you find -- you know -- >> supervisor kim: why don't we -- when i meant workers i meant people work on the island, not workers involved in cleanup activity. we have folks that work at the boys and girls club, the child center, we have families on site as well. for us as elected officials, as

san francisco residents that we speak to what can we do to assure them given the sample swipes have shown that there aren't contamination on site currently. but my question is, is that have there been cases in the past where that has been the preliminary conclusion but then with further surveying work that we have found contamination on site that is hazardous to the health of our residents -- not our residents, residents in other sites? >> understood. i was saying in general. my general answer would be no, but it's important that these measurements and assessments are -- they need to be done periodically. >> supervisor kim: my next question, and this wasn't in your memo but was in our city attorney's memo, was that -- some of the potential sites that additional scoping surveys would not be conducted until 2013. and my question is why so late? >> i can't speak to that.

i'm not involved with the scheduling. but i know as far as the priorities that tida has requested of cdph regarding these newly identified areas, the focus is areas where there are occupied residences, and areas where there are puc workers. >> supervisor kim: have you read some of the media articles that have come out lately? >> not all, but some, yes. >> supervisor kim: what would be your response to some of the concerns from previous residents of treasure island that say that they feel like there's a higher rate of cancer amongst their family, and their neighbors, and some of the concerns that have come up through those articles? >> i'm not aware of an elevated cancer rate. as far as that being -- but i'm also not aware of any radiological exposure of anyone on treasure island that -- of that background, of a -- you know, distinguishable from background and that's what cdph and -- have said all along. again, i'm not aware of any

elevated cancer rate but i wouldn't think you could draw any correlation, if there was such a thing, i can't see drawing a correlation to elevated radiation when there wasn't been any. radiation is a fact of life we're exposed to it every day, it's a natural thing, it's nothing to be afraid of. >> supervisor kim: would you feel comfortable with your kids being at the boys and girls club? is. >> yes. given the -- i have two children. my kids are 5 and 3. they're my whole world. >> supervisor kim: i do want to give opportunity to my colleagues to ask some questions as well. >> president chiu: supervisor avalos. >> supervisor avalos: thank you, supervisor kim. thank you for your questioning. i think they're real good questions you were asking. i'm not going to belabor the point, but there is a forthcoming report from cdph that's coming out, correct? is i'm expecting it t to be -- they're doing ongoing work now

based on the latest data that's come out. you reference it here in your talking points. you say there's -- cdph's investigation to date have identified any public health dangers. there is little likelihood of significant public health risk with regard to the impacted areas. you say the same thing again earlier in your talking points. so do you feel that the work that cdph is doing is redundant? how is it different from what you've already accomplished, but you can still say that -- how is their investigation different from what you have already accomplished? how could you say that i'm not going to come up with any health risk? >> i'm not sure what you mean about what i've already accomplished. my role has been review and oversight. as far as what do i mean when i say -- i think there's little likelihood. that's